MPAA head switching things up, trying to re-define a commonly used term related to file sharing

The music and movie industries have relied on misdirection and lies to help spread their view of internet piracy, and a commonly used phrase may have been misused.

MPAA CEO Chris Dodd has changed his mind on what theft really means when speaking about file sharing, saying his organization must become more focused on consumers.

"We're in a transformative [sic] period with an explosion of technology that's going to need content," Dodd recently said. "We're going to have to be more subtle and consumer-oriented. We're on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery."

Dodd didn't state that file sharing isn't a crime, but signals towards a different approach to deal with the problem.

Classifying downloaded music and movies as “theft” helps polarize file sharing, and some PC users believe file sharing is stealing. However, most PC users didn't consider file sharing the same as physical theft from a store or residence, and file sharing still prospers in an evolving market.

If a person downloads and shares copyrighted content online, they technically aren't depriving the owner of complete ownership of the material. Specifically, it's more of a legal issue dealing with intellectual property rights, and could be addressed in the future.

After Napster and other popular peer-to-peer networks were shuttered, internet users and copyright holders both adapted to a changing battlefield. The RIAA and MPAA will continue to focus more on targeting ISPs and trying to pass legislation, such as SOPA, which failed in early 2012, in an attempt to limit file sharing.

It’s interesting to hear Dodd switch gears, as his trade group continues anti-piracy efforts by lobbying in Washington, D.C.

This isn't a sign that the MPAA will suddenly leave behind efforts to stifle piracy, and a SOPA follow-up is expected in 2013. In fact, the MPAA recently hired Marc Miller, a former Nintendo antipiracy counsel and computer crime deputy chief at the DOJ, to become MPAA Senior VP of content protection and Internet.

LOL. I haven't bought a music cd in almost 20 years. Pretty soon I'll be able to say I haven't bought a CD in over half of my life. I'll be more than happy to say that still on my death bed. Even if I like the music I won't buy. Also note I haven't listened to the radio in over 5 years. I rarely hear a song any more that I actually want (only usually hear them in movies these days, and may seek a song). The last music CD I bought was a greatest hits album. I may have bought a few of those from amazon etc in the last 20...Thinking harder I may have - but it's so few I don't remember - Chicago, Foreigner, Journey - something like that. It was a LONG time ago for sure.

When they start selling music CD's for $3-4, or have at least 1/2 of the songs as hits, I'll buy again. NO CD is worth $15-17 for a song or two. Really, if I only like 2 songs why should I pay for the other 8 crap ones? Songs should be .99 and albums $4 tops. Make your money on tour, not from the album.

I haven't been to a theater in about that long either (umm, since some highlander movie long ago). But I did bring the theater home :) Actors are overpaid. Nobody should get more than $1mil for a movie (I'm talking stallone/arnold etc - tv episodes, no more than $50K per episode and that would be for Seinfeld in my book). I don't go to the movies because $30 for a 2hr experience for the family is stupid. A movie should go for $3-4 also in bluray or theater. In 2hrs its useless trash. I just don't believe there are many jobs that are worth more than a Mil/year (content jobs I mean - games, music, sports, movies). Now if you're talking a guy running a company that makes billions in income, maybe 1mil+ is reasonable. But that's like hall of famer financial/CEO stars I'm talking here. Nobody is worth this much. You may run a company, but it's the 10,000-100,000 workers that are making all that money, not some guy at the top who signs his name occasionally. Golden parachutes shouldn't exist at all. They've almost destroyed companies like HP etc. They shove the stock up and run before the wheels come off. Carly Fiorina comes to mind.

Sports? I wouldn't pay any player over $250K per year and that would be a hall of famer for sure (they do have 5-15yr careers - but it's a damn game for gods sake). These people are the reason I think TV, sporting events, movies, music etc are all not worth paying for. My dad used to take me to Seahawk games, and many minor league/college games etc. I would never do that at today's prices. I couldn't without calling myself an idiot immediately after the purchase. They've priced me out of pretty much everything.

I now seek every avenue but the one they try to sell me originally...ROFL. They are making me WORSE too. By 2020, I think I may actually label myself a Pirate if the laws keep pushing in the direction they're currently seeking. Today I'm still legit via bargain bins, Roku, netflix, amazon etc. I may temporarily break laws (until they remove the protection etc), but I'm legit in the end. However, I see that changing. I no longer believe it's wrong to pirate, I just don't do it. I feel they deserve it, but still have no problem paying what I really think something is worth reasonably.

In 5-10 years I will feel fully justified in paying nothing. I will have NO MORALS by then. I can guarantee that, if the experience as an honest person sucks compared to being a pirate. I crack every game I buy via gamecopyworld etc. I shouldn't have to put up with crashing because of DRM and hate digging for dvd's etc. So I choose not to. I don't believe in DLC either. Expansions are OK (only if they provide at least another 30%+ of gameplay - anything less forget it), but DLC needs to die. I will never PAY for DLC. I'll buy when it's bargin bin and ultimate/platinum etc version with all DLC, expansions, patches etc for $20-30 :) Less if they DLC the game to death. I'll wait even longer to buy it. I can miss Diablo3 and never care. Though I'm sure it will be cracked and emulated shortly (I know it's being worked on). There are too many other good games that I can't even find time to play as it is. Diablo3 could have sold another 6-10mil copies if it was $30 with no online or drm issues. This is what they don't get. They could make so much more if they made it so 90% of america etc could afford to buy it instead of the top 15% or so. They've locked themselves into a small audience due to price.

Most just can't part with $60 a month for a new game, movies/music etc. Steam is a great example of this. They sell games cheaper and people flock to them (even though I hate them, and will only play a cracked steam game that has it removed basically). I LOVE GOG though and hope others follow them. I don't have a STEAM account...ROFL. Could you imagine if games were 1/2 price vs today? If the top games were $30, you'd enable a good double to triple the customers that could purchase without cringing.